Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relation - Essay Example

?Critical Analysis Table of Contents 0.Overview 3 2.0.Insights 4 3.0.Importance 4 4.0.Motivation 6 5.0.The Research Problem 7 6.0.Theoretical Framework 8 7.0.Literature 9 8.0.Research Method 10 9.0.Sample Selection 11 10.0.Validity 13 11.0.Analysis 13 12.0.Conclusion and Recommendations 15 References 16 Bibliography 18 1.0. Overview The paper deals with the critical analysis of two research journals, i.e. ‘A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction and Profitability’ by Bernhardt & et. al. (2000) and ‘The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relation: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review’ by Judge & et. al. (2001). The objectives of these journals along with the importance of the discussion constructed in these journals will also be taken into account while interpreting their criticality. The research methods, literatures and analyses criteria considered in these journals will be taken as significant parameters to analyse the validity at large. Hereafter, the two journals will be observed as Journal A and Journal B respectively. To be precise, the two journals considered for this paper are as follows. Journal A: ‘A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction and Profitability’ by Bernhardt & et. al. (2000) Journal B: ‘The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relation: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review’ by Judge & et. al. (2001) 2.0. Insights The study presented in Journal A is focused on examining the linkage existing between customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. The primary intention of the Journal is to throw light on the gap observed in literatures, where the linkage between the two factors, i.e. customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction in relation to the overall organisational profitability were many a times depicted through qualitative means but lacked in a longitudinal analysis. Journal B was also focused on a similar research problem concerning the linkage between job performance and job performance affecting the organisational productivity. However, the primary intention of the Journal was not to fill a gap observed in the prior literatures, but was to indicate a strong relationship existing between the two factors and thus suggest various possible methods to deal with the linkage effectively in organisations. The Journal also aimed at motivating further researches by providing a strong cause based on the research issue identified. Therefore, even though a strong similarity can be observed in the insights of the two Journals, a significant difference can be observed in terms of the insights or intentions discoursed in these researches. 3.0. Importance With due consideration to the gap in the insights presented through the literatures or the Journals, it is quite likely that the importance of these two journals will also differ in certain terms. For instance, Journal A intends to fill a significant gap in the prior research studies where mainly qualitative guidance was provided to prove the linkage between customer satisfaction and the employee satisfaction indicating the overall productivity of the organisations. Journal A, thus, could prove highly beneficial in taking a leap towards more efficient and accurate justification of the relationship between the two factors. On the contrary, Journal B aimed at substantiating the findings obtained from qualitative method and quantitative method as well so as to confirm the level of dependency in the two factors, i.e. job satisfaction and job performance in relation to the organisational profitability. With this concern, Journal B could prove beneficial in unveiling the actual dependency level between the factors from a managerial perspective along with facilitating further researches based on the similar issue. Where on one hand, Journal A has the potential of being quite important for further research studies based on the similar issue concerned with the reflection of the linkage between customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction; on the other hand, Journal B has the probability to prove important for managers and organisations, provided it suggests better strategies in the industrial context and proves to be persuading for future researches. It is worth mentioning that the importance perceived by both the Journals is highly depended on the accomplishment of the desired objectives in the two researches to a large extent. 4.0. Motivation The motivational aspects of the two Journals can be expressly diagnosed from the declaration of objectives in both the instances. The plan on which the discussion of Journal A is based relates to the gap in the prior research findings. As the authors state, researchers were becoming increasingly concerned regarding the influence created by customer satisfaction on the employee satisfaction and the overall organisational productivity at large, during the early 21st century. But according to the authors, only a few studies considered the time series analysis as an appropriate measure to evaluate the linkage between customer satisfaction and job performance. This certain gap observed in the literatures conducted in late 20th century acted as a motivation to the discussion of Journal A. In the similar context, Journal B lacks in providing an explicit notion regarding its motivational aspect to develop the research on the basis of the linkage existing between the job performance perceived by industry workers and the level of satisfaction they earned from their employment. However, it can be revealed from the discussion in this Journal that the authors considered the complexity and the vulnerability in the research traditions during the period concerning the similar issue, as one of the vital motivational aspects for the formulation of the research. Hence, the Journal can be observed as based on the proposition that prior literatures were somewhat inadequate in developing a comprehensive description of the linkage between job performance and job satisfaction and thus, there was a requirement of efficient and accurate research study. Thus, even though the primary intentions of the two Journals were quite dissimilar, the motivational aspects can be stated as similar in terms that both the researches were enthused by the vulnerability of the prior literatures. 5.0. The Research Problem The documentation of Journal A provides a clear view to the research problem addressed in the discussion. The research problem identified in this Journal can be apparently identified from the introduction as well as from the abstract prominently. It is worth mentioning that the research problem identified in this issue was the lacuna witnessed in the prior literatures based on the relationship involving employee satisfaction, organisational profitability and customer satisfaction and intended to address the effect of this relationship on the overall organisational productivity. From a focused point of view, this Journal addresses that most of the literatures during the late 20th century ignored time-series or longitudinal studies in the process of evaluating the relationship between the two factors of customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction which acted as the research problem in Journal A. However, the documentation of the research process in Journal B lacks in providing an expressive indication to the research problem considered. Although the discussion of the Journal tends to denote the motivation considered by the authors, a reader must go through the entire introduction of the Journal to understand the research problem acting in the process. From the description provided in the Journal, it can be revealed that the research problem identified while conducting this research process is focused on the complexity of the concepts related to job satisfaction as well as job performance along with the perplexity witnessed while measuring the relationship between the two concepts. In comparison to Journal A, it can be stated that the research problem and subsequently the research objectives in Journal B happens to be unclear and uncertain to an extent. 6.0. Theoretical Framework Journal A fundamentally focused on the impact of customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction criteria amid the workers which in turn tend to influence the overall profitability of the organisation. With this concern, the Journal can be observed to provide with a comprehensible and well-formulated theoretical framework addressing the relationship connecting customer satisfaction and profit along with the relationship existing between employee satisfaction and profit which ultimately intended to formulate the relationship amid customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction as a contributor to overall organisational profit. The authors in Journal A also provide with adequate linkage between the theoretical background and hypotheses as well as provide with a clear view towards the longitudinal approach adopted for the purpose of evaluating the relationship amid employee satisfaction, profit and customer satisfaction. From an overall point of view, the theoretical framework provided in Journal A can be regarded as sufficient and efficient in providing an understanding of the research process. On the contrary, in order to develop an understanding of the research process executed in Journal B, the reader should go though the description of qualitative and quantitative approaches separately included in the research. Thus, it can be stated that Journal B does not provide with an adequate and comprehensive theoretical framework to the research process; although, the discussion of the Journal provides with a significant description of the research method. 7.0. Literature Journal A can be apparently observed to refer the research findings or the facts considered in the research study from various sources mostly dated in the late 20th century, i.e. the 1980s and the 1990s. Almost all the literatures have been adequately referenced based on the research conclusions derived from those literatures. For instance, literatures by Anderson & et. al. (1994) as well as Oliver (1993) among others was appropriately referenced in the discussion maintaining the relevance between the intention of the authors in Journal A and the research conclusions of these literatures. A similar coordination can also be witnessed in relation to other sections or the Journal and the referenced literatures throughout the documentation. The research process documented in Journal B was also gauged by numerous literatures dated from the early 1950s to the late 1990s in order to collect sufficient amount of reliable data and also to evaluate the research findings obtained in the process. However, among these literatures most of them were strongly and directly related to the research dimensions considered in Journal B, a few of them can be observed to have meagre relevance to the research objective determined such as the literature by Gardner & Pierce (1998) and Gavin & Ewen (1974) among others. It is worth mentioning that these literatures, intended to depict the various factors associated with employee motivational aspects, rather than indicating the relationship involving employee satisfaction and job performance, but were still included in the meta-analysis to analyse the gap in the findings of literatures to represent the relationship between the two factors. Hence, it can be stated that the literatures taken into consideration were not adequately judged on the basis of their relevance to the research objective. 8.0. Research Method The research design developed in Journal A concentrates on the quantitative method with the data collection process focused on both primary and secondary sources. The secondary sources were taken into account in terms of various literatures developed in the 1980s to the late 1990s so as to depict an unambiguous picture of the research issue identified in the process. In the similar context, the research in Journal A also concentrated on the responses of 3,009 employees and 342,308 consumers of a national fast-food restaurant chain comprising of 472 restaurants. The process of data collection was continued for 12 months in order to obtain sufficient data for a time-series test. The data collection process in this research was further demonstrated to take place in periodical intervals in the restaurants where 100 questionnaires per restaurant were surveyed each time in a self-administered manner. These facts regarding the research method implemented by the authors in Journal A can be evidently observed by a reader from the section of method which in turn indicates the transparency of the research paper. However, the description of the research method used in this process was not adequately framed with sufficient rational explanation which on the contradictory aspect depicts a vital limitation of Journal A. As can be apparently witnessed from the title of Journal B, the research method used in the process was mixed taking into account both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. For the research purpose the data collection process was concentrated on a wide array of secondary sources. However, the research process documented in the Journal was unclear and lacked sufficient rational judgement which at large affected the efficiency of the research paper. In order to identify the actual research method applied in the research process in Journal B, a reader will have to go through the entire research process documented in the issue. Comparing both the researches in terms of the research method applied, it can be evidently stated that Journal A is more comprehensive than Journal B, even though, both the Journals lack in defining the actual research method applied with an adequate, unambiguous and rational explanation in relation to the pre-defined research objectives. 9.0. Sample Selection The sample sizes considered in each of the researches have been clearly demonstrated in the Journals. For instance, the research process in Journal A was focused on a large sample size of 342,308 which included the customers of 472 restaurants in the national context. Journal A also reveals that a second set of data were collected with due consideration to the employees as respondents in the 472 restaurants. Thus, it can be evidently observed that Journal A focused on a simple random sampling method for selecting the sample size of customers and on a stratified random sampling for selecting the sample size of employees as the researchers tend to select the respondent employees at a specified interval of 37th sample. However, the sampling method undertaken for the research study was not explicitly mentioned in the Journal. Journal B also revealed explicitly that a sample size of 312 literatures was considered in the research process. However, the Journal failed in reflecting the selection method or sampling technique used in the research study with clarity and sufficient rational explanation. Therefore, from an overall point of view, Journal B lacked in depicting the entire process of sampling which can be observed to be comparatively more adequate in the Journal A; although, both the researches lacked in providing with a clear view to the sampling method used for the research purposes. 10.0. Validity With due consideration to the validity of Journal A, it is worth mentioning that the research process obtained a response rate of more than 90% in relation to the self-administered surveyed conducted with customers as respondents. On the other hand, the response rate recorded in relation to the second set of data collection though employee survey was stated to obtain a response rate of 30%. Hence, it can be revealed from the facts that the research method was validated in Journal A with significant response rates, especially concerning the customers. The research process documented in Journal B, considered a sample size of 312 literatures based on a relevant issue that intended to justify the relationship linking employee satisfaction, job performance and the overall organisational productivity. Hence, response rates were not measurable in this case. However, the research papers also lacked in providing with a robust explanation to the validity of the research method and also did not demonstrate the criteria based on which the literatures were validated. 11.0. Analysis The research process in Journal A intended to implement a time-series test to analyse the collected data with the purpose to depict a longitudinal impact of the relationship amid customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. The research study can also be observed to implement a cross-sectional analysis which indicates that the researchers must possess sufficient understanding of the statistical tools that can be used to evaluate the linkage between the two factors along with the aspect of organisational profitability. Moreover, the assessment of the linkage between customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction and profitability can be observed as quite broad which becomes more complex with the inclusion of a large sample size including 342,308 consumers and 3,009 employees from 472 fast-food restaurants. In this regard, the researchers depicted adequate skills in analysing the wide array of data collected with efficiency and with sufficient transparency as well. Furthermore, the layout of the Journal was also quite comprehensible. In the similar context, Journal B focused on implementing a meta-analysis process so as to evaluate the findings obtained from prior literatures and thus, identify the gap existing amid those. Including a statistical tool in analysing a qualitative data series is a quite challenging task which was executed with efficiency by the researchers in Journal B. In addition, the research paper also depicts the qualitative data analysis procedure with adequate clarity and in a well-structured manner taking into concern seven different models for evaluating the various groups of literatures. However, the research paper explicitly depicts that due to a misinterpretation identified in the initial calculation of meta-analysis, the entire process of data analysis had to be reconstructed. Thus, from an overall point of view, both the Journals can be observed as effective in depicting the research findings and the data analysis procedure with clarity, transparency and rationality. 12.0. Conclusion and Recommendations Journal A clearly and comprehensively states the conclusion of the research process conveying the main findings obtained through the data analysis and discussion. The conclusion derived in Journal A depicts that a significant relationship exists between customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction at any given period of time through the implementation of a cross-sectional study. The conclusion of Journal A also depicts that at any given point of time customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction individually can have a significant impact on the financial performance of the organisation which explicitly depicts a correlation between organisational profitability, employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Based on the research findings, the research paper has also documented relevant recommendations for both managerial concerns and future researches. A clear and comprehensible conclusion can also be observed in Journal B where the researchers depict that job satisfaction possesses a strong interdependent relationship with job performance. However, in comparison to Journal A, the conclusion stated in Journal B was not adequately structured. It also did not provide with sufficient recommendations for the managerial or future research purpose. References Anderson, E. W. & et. al., 1994. Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 53–66. Bernhardt, K. L. & et. al., 2000. A Longitudinal Analysis of Satisfaction and Profitability. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 47, pp. 161–171. Gardner, D. G. & Pierce, J. L., 1998. Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy within the Organizational Context. Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23, pp. 48-70. Gavin, J. F. & Ewen, R. B., 1974. Racial Differences in Job Attitudes and Performance: Some Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 455-464. Judge, T. A. & et. al., 2001. The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychological Bulletin, Vo l. 127, pp. 376-407. Oliver, R. L., 1993. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Service Satisfaction: Compatible Goals, Different Concepts. Advances in Services Marketing and Management, 2nd ed., pp. 65-85. Bibliography Abramis, D. J., 1994. Relationship of Job Stressors to Job Performance: Linear or an Inverted-U? Psychological Reports, Vol. 75, pp. 547-558. Bauer, T. N. & Green, S. G., 1998. Testing the Combined Effects of Newcomer Information Seeking and Manager Behaviour on Socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 72-83. Day, D. V. & Bedeian, A. G., 1995. Person similarity and work-related outcomes among African-American nursing personnel: A test of the supplementary model of person-environment congruence. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 46, pp. 55-70. Rust, R. T. & et. al., 1995. Return on Quality (ROQ): Making Service Quality Financially Accountable. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 58–70. Read More